MAE 5460: FRACTURE MECHANICS

AND FATIGUE OF MATERIALS

Textbook:
T. L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics Fundamentals and
Applications, 3nd edition, CRC Press Taylor & Francis
Group, 2005

11/7/16

MAE 5460

Table of Contents

Part I Introduction
Chapter 1 History and Overview
Part II Fundamental Concepts
Chapter 2 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
2.9 K-Controlled Fracture
Appendix 2: Mathematical Foundations of Linear Elastic
Fracture Mechanics
A2.1 Plane Elasticity
A2.1.1 Cartesian Coordinates
A2.1.2 Polar Coordinates
A2.2 Crack Growth Instability Analysis
A2.3 Crack-Tip Stress Analysis
A 2.3.1 Generalized In-Plane Loading
A2.3.2 The Westergaard Stress Function
A2.4 Elliptical Integral of the Second Kind
References
11/7/16

MAE 5460

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 3 Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics
3.5 J-Controlled Fracture
Appendix 3: Mathematical Foundations of Elastic-Plastic
Fracture Mechanics
Chapter 4 Dynamic and Time-Dependent Fracture
Appendix 4: Dynamic Fracture Analysis
Part III Material Behavior
Chapter 5 Fracture Mechanisms in Metals
Chapter 6 Fracture Mechanisms in Nonmetals
11/7/16

MAE 5460

Table of Contents (continued)

Part IV Applications
Chapter 7 Fracture Toughness Testing of Metals
Chapter 8 Fracture Testing of Nonmetals
Chapter 9 Application to Structures
Chapter 10 Fatigue Crack Propagation
Chapter 11 Environmentally Assisted Cracking in Metals
Chapter 12 Computational Fracture Mechanics
11/7/16

MAE 5460

Chapter 1: History and Overview

Fracture is a problem that society has faced for as long as there have
been man-made structures.
The problem may actually be worse today than in previous centuries,
because more can go wrong in our complex technological society. For
example, major airline crashes would not be possible without modern
aerospace technology.
Fortunately, advances in the field of Fracture Mechanics have helped
to offset some of the potential dangers posed by the increasing
technological complexity.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

 Our understanding of how materials fail and our ability to prevent such
failures have increased considerably since World War II.
However, much remains to be learned, and existing knowledge of
fracture mechanics is not always applied when appropriate.
The annual cost of fracture in the U.S. in 1978 at $119 billion (in 1982
dollars!), about 4% of the gross national product.
The annual cost could be reduced by $35 billion if current technology
were applied, and further fracture mechanics research could reduce
this figure by an additional $28 billion.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

 The field of fracture mechanics was virtually nonexistent prior to World

War II, but has since matured into an established discipline.
Most universities with an engineering program offer at least one
fracture mechanics course on the graduate level, and an increasing
number of undergraduates have been exposed to this subject.

Application of fracture mechanics in industry are relatively common,

as knowledge that was once confined to a few specialists is becoming
more widespread.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

1.1 Why Structures Fail?

The cause of most structural failures generally falls into one of the
following categories:
1. Negligence during design, construction, or operation of the
structure.
2. Application of a new design or material, which produces an
unexpected (and undesirable) result.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

Type 1 Failure: Example

Figure 1.1 The MSV Kurdistan oil tanker, which sustained a brittle
fracture while sailing in the North Atlantic in 1979: (a) fractured vessel in
dry dock and (b) bilge keel that was improperly welded and from which
the11/7/16
fracture initiated.
MAE 5460
9

Type 2 Failure: Example

Figure 1.2 Fracture surface of a polyethylene (PE) pipe that

sustained time-dependent crack growth as a result of pinch
clamping. The pinch clamping process was presumably tested
thoroughly before it was applied in service, but no one
anticipated that the procedure would introduce damage in the
material
that could lead to failure after several years
in service.
11/7/16
MAE 5460

Figure 1.3 Thumbnail crack

produced in a PE pipe after pinch
clamping for 72 h.
10

Both Type 1 and Type 2 Failures: Examples

Some catastrophic events include elements both of Type 1 and Type 2
failures.
On January 28, 1986, the Challenger Space Shuttle exploded because
an O-ring seal in one of the main boosters did not respond well to cold
weather.
The shuttle represents relatively new technology, where service
experience is limited (Type 2), but engineers from the booster
manufacturer suspected a potential problem with the O-ring seals and
recommended that the launch be delayed (Type 1).
Unfortunately, these engineers had little or no data to support their
position and were unable to convince their managers of NASA officials.
The tragic results of the decision to launch are well known.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

11

Both Type 1 and Type 2 Failures: Examples

On February 1, 2003, almost exactly 17 years after the Challenger
accident, the Space Shuttle Columbia was destroyed during reentry.
The apparent cause of the incident was foam insulation from the
external tank striking the left wing during launch.
This debris damaged insulation tiles on the underside of the wing,
making the orbiter vulnerable to reentry temperatures that can reach
3000F.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

12

 Over the past few decades, the field of fracture mechanics has
undoubtedly prevented a substantial number of structural failures.
We will never know how many lives have been saved or how much
property damage has been avoided by applying this technology,
because it is impossible to quantify disasters that dont happen.
When applied correctly, fracture mechanics not only helps to prevent
Type 1 failures but also reduces the frequency of Type 2 failures,
because designers can rely on rational analysis rather than trial and
error.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

13

1.2 Historical Perspective

Designing structures to avoid fracture is not a new idea.
The fact that many structures commissioned by the Pharaohs of
ancient Egypt and the Caesars of Rome are still standing is a
testimony to the ability of early architects and engineers.
In Europe, numerous buildings and bridges constructed during the
Renaissance Period are still used for their intended purpose.
The ancient structures that are still standing today obviously
represent successful designs. There were undoubtedly MANY MORE
unsuccessful designs with much shorter life spans. Because
knowledge of mechanics was limited prior to the time of Isaac
Newton, workable designs were probably achieved largely by trial and
error.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

14

 The Romans supposedly tested each new bridge by requiring the

design engineer to stand underneath while chariots drove over it.
Such a practice would not only provide an incentive for developing
good designs, but would also result in the social equivalent of
Darwinian natural selection, where the worst engineers were removed
from the profession.
The durability of ancient structures is particularly amazing when one
considers that the choice of building materials prior to the Industrial
Revolution was rather limited.
Metals could not be produced in sufficient quantity to be formed into
load-bearing members for buildings and bridges.
The primary construction materials prior to the 19 th century were
timber, brick, and mortar; only the latter two materials were usually
practical for large structures such as cathedrals, because trees of
sufficient size for support beams were rare.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

15

 Brick and mortar are relatively brittle and are unreliable for carrying
tensile loads. Consequently, pre-Industrial Revolution structures were
usually designed to be loaded in compression.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

Figure 1.4
Schematic Roman
bridge design. The
arch shape of the
bridge causes loads
to be transmitted
through the structure
as compressive
stresses (rather than
tensile stresses).16

 The arch is the predominant shape in pre-Industrial Revolution

architecture. Windows and roof spans were arched in order to
maintain compressive loading.
Figure 1.5 Two windows
and a portion of the ceiling
in Kings College Chapel
in Cambridge, England.
This structure was
completed in 1515.
Although these shapes
are aesthetically pleasing,
their primary purpose is
more pragmatic.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

17

 Compressively loaded structures are obviously stable, since some

have lasted for many centuries. The pyramids in Egypt are the
epitome of a stable design.
With the Industrial Revolution came mass production of iron and steel.
The availability of relatively ductile construction materials removed the
earlier restrictions on design.
It was finally feasible to build structures that carried tensile stresses.
Note the difference between the design of the Tower Bridge in London
(Figure 1.6) and the earlier bridge (Figure 1.4).

11/7/16

MAE 5460

18

Figure 1.4 Schematic Roman

bridge design. The arch shape of
the bridge causes loads to be
transmitted through the structure as
compressive stresses (rather than
tensile stresses).
11/7/16

Figure 1.6 The Tower Bridge in

London, completed in 1894. Note the
modern beam design, made possible
by the availability of steel support
girders.
MAE 5460
19

 However, the change from brick and mortar structures loaded in

compression to steel structures in tension brought problems.
Occasionally, a steel structure would fail unexpectedly at stresses well
below the anticipated tensile strength.
One of the most famous of these failures was the rupture of a
molasses tank in Boston in January 1919. Over 2 million gallons of
molasses were spilled, resulting in 12 deaths, 40 injuries, massive
property damage, and several drowned horses.
The cause of the failure of the molasses tank was largely a mystery at
the time. In the first edition of his elasticity text published in 1892, Love
remarked that the conditions of rupture are but vaguely understood.
Designers typically applied safety factors of 10 or more (based on the
tensile strength) in an effort to avoid these seemingly random failures.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

20

1.2.1 Early Fracture Research

Experiments performed by Leonardo da Vinci several centuries
earlier provided some clues as to the root cause of fracture.
He measured the strength of iron wires and found that the strength
varied inversely with wire length.
These results implied that flaws in the material controlled the strength
because: A longer wire corresponded to a larger sample volume, and
a higher probability of sampling a region containing a flaw. However,
these results were only qualitative.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

21

 A quantitative connection between fracture stress and flaw size came

from the work of Griffith, which was published in 1920. He applied a
stress analysis of an elliptical hole (performed by Inglis seven years
earlier) to the unstable propagation of a crack.
Griffith invoked the first law of thermodynamics to formulate a fracture
theory based on a simple energy balance. According to this theory, a
flaw becomes unstable, and thus fracture occurs, when the strainenergy change that results from an increment of crack growth is
sufficient to overcome the surface energy of the material.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

22

 Griffiths model correctly predicted the relationship between strength

and flaw size in glass specimens.
Subsequent efforts to apply the Griffith model to metals were
unsuccessful. Since this model assumes that the work of fracture
comes exclusively from the surface energy of the material, the Griffith
approach applies only to ideally brittle solids.
A modification to Griffiths model, that made it applicable to metals,
did not come until 1948.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

23

1.2.2 The Liberty Ships

The mechanics of fracture progressed from being a scientific curiosity to an
engineering discipline, primarily because of what happened to the Liberty ships during
World War II.
The Liberty ship program was a resounding success, until one day in 1943, when one
of the vessels broke completely in two while sailing between Siberia and Alaska.
Subsequent fractures occurred in other Liberty ships. Investigations revealed that the
Liberty ship failures were caused by a combination of three factors:
The welds, which were produced by a semi-skilled work force, contained crack-like
flaws.
Most of the fractures initiated on the deck at square hatch corners, where there was
a local stress concentration.
The steel from which the Liberty ships were made had poor toughness, as
measured
by Charpy impact tests.
11/7/16
MAE 5460
24

In the longer term, structural steels were developed

with vastly improved toughness, and weld quality
control standards were developed.
Also, a group of researchers at the Naval Research
Laboratory in Washington, DC, studied the fracture
problem in detail. The field we now know as fracture
mechanics was born in this lab during the decade
following the war.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

25

1.2.3 Post-War Fracture Mechanics Research

(before 1960)
The fracture mechanics research group at the Naval Research
Laboratory was led by Dr. G. R. Irwin. After studying the early work of
Inglis, Griffith, and others.
Irwin concluded that the basic tools needed to analyze fracture were
already available.
Irwins first major contribution was to extend the Griffith approach to
metals by including the energy dissipated by local plastic flow.
Orowan independently proposed a similar modification to the Griffith
theory.
During this same period, Mott extended the Griffith theory to a rapidly
propagating crack.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

26

1.2.4 Fracture Mechanics from 1960 to 1980

The Second World War obviously separate two distinct eras in the
history of fracture mechanics.
However, there is some ambiguity as to how the period between the
end of the war and the present should be divided.
One possible historical boundary occurred around 1960, when the
fundamentals of linear elastic fracture mechanics were fairly well
established, and researchers turned their attention to crack-tip
plasticity.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

27

Big names:
Irwin, Dugdale, Barenblatt, Wells, Rice, Hutchinson, Rosengren,
Begley, Landes, Shih, Burdekin, Dawes,

Much of the theoretical foundation of dynamic fracture mechanics

was developed in the period between 1960 and 1980. Significant
contributions were made by a number of researchers, as discussed in
Chapter 4.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

28

1.2.5 Fracture Mechanics from 1980 to the Present

The field of fracture mechanics matured in the last two decades of the
20th century.
Current research tends to result in incremental advances rather than
major gains.
The application of this technology to practical problems is so
pervasive that fracture mechanics is now considered an established
engineering discipline.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

29

 The continuing explosion in computer technology has aided both the

development and application of fracture mechanics technology.
For example, an ordinary desktop computer is capable of performing
complex three-dimensional finite element analyses of structural
components that contain cracks.
Computer technology has also spawned entirely new areas of
fracture mechanics research. Problems encountered in the
microelectronics industry have led to active research in interface
fracture and nanoscale fracture.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

30

1.3 The Fracture Mechanics Approach to Design

Figure 1.7 Comparison of the
fracture mechanics approach to
design with the traditional
strength of materials approach:
(a) the strength of materials
(mechanics of materials)
approach, and

11/7/16

MAE 5460

(b) the fracture mechanics

approach.

31

 There are two alternative approaches to fracture analysis: the energy

criterion and the stress-intensity approach.
These two approaches are equivalent in certain circumstances.

1.3.1 The Energy Criterion

The energy approach states that crack extension (i.e., fracture) occurs
when the energy available for crack growth is sufficient to overcome the
resistance of the material.
The material resistance may include the surface energy, plastic work, or
other types of energy dissipation associated with a propagating crack.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

32

Surface Energy
From Wikipedia:
Surface energy quantifies the disruption of intermolecular bonds that
occur when a surface is created.
In the physics of solids, surfaces must be intrinsically less energetically
favorable than the bulk of a material (the molecules on the surface have
more energy compared with the molecules in the bulk of the material),
otherwise there would be a driving force for surfaces to be created,
removing the bulk of the material.
The surface energy may therefore be defined as the excess energy at the
surface of a material compared to the bulk.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

33

For a liquid,
the surface tension (force per unit length) and the surface energy
density are identical.
Water has a surface energy density of 0.072 J/m 2 and a surface
tension of 0.072 N/m; the units are equivalent.
When a solution is formed comprising a mixture of two liquids or
dissolved molecules, the surface tension of the primary liquid can
deviate from corresponding pure liquid values.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

34

For a solid,
Cutting a solid body into pieces disrupts its bonds, and therefore consumes
energy.
If the cutting is done reversibly, then conservation of energy means that the
energy consumed by the cutting process will be equal to the energy inherent in
the two new surfaces created.
The unit surface energy of a material would therefore be half of its energy of
cohesion, all other things being equal; in practice, this is true only for a surface
freshly prepared in vacuum.
Surfaces often change their form away from the simple "cleaved bond" model
just implied above. They are found to be highly dynamic regions, which readily
rearrange or react, so that energy is often reduced by such processes as
passivation or adsorption.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

35

Griffith was the first to propose the energy criterion for fracture, but Irwin is
primarily responsible for developing the present version of this approach:
The energy release rate G which is defined as the rate of change in
potential energy with the crack area for a linear elastic material.
At the moment of fracture G= Gc where Gc is the critical energy release
rate, which is a measure of fracture toughness.
Figure 1.8 Through-thickness crack
in an infinite plate subject to a
remote tensile stress. In practical
terms, infinite means that the width
of the plate is >>2a.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

36

For a crack of length 2a in an infinite plate subject to a remote tensile

stress (Figure 1.8), the energy release rate is given by
(1.1)
where E is Youngs modulus, is the remotely applied stress, and a is the
half-crack length.
At fracture G= Gc, and the above equation describes the critical
combinations of stress and crack size for failure:
(1.2)
Note that for a constant Gc value, failure stress f varies with
. The
energy release rate G is the driving force for fracture, while Gc is the
materials
resistance to fracture. MAE 5460
11/7/16
37

 To draw an analogy to the strength of materials approach of Figure

1.7(a), the applied stress can be viewed as the driving force for plastic
deformation, while the yield strength is a measure of the materials
resistance to deformation.
A yield strength value measured with a laboratory specimen should be
applicable to a large structure; yield strength does not depend on
specimen size, provided the material is reasonably homogenous.
One of the fundamental assumptions of fracture mechanics is that
fracture toughness (Gc in this case) is independent of the size and
geometry of the cracked body; a fracture toughness measurement on a
laboratory specimen should be applicable to a structure.
All configuration effects are taken into account by the driving force G .
The assumption is valid as long as the material behavior is
predominantly linear elastic.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

38

1.3.2 The Stress-Intensity Approach

Figure 1.9: An element near the tip of a crack in an elastic material, and
the in-plane stresses on this element. Note that each stress component
is proportional to a single constant KI.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

39

 If this constant (KI) is known, the entire stress distribution at the

crack tip can be computed with the equations shown in Figure 1.9.
This constant, which is called the stress-intensity factor, completely
characterizes the crack-tip conditions in a linear elastic material.
(The meaning of the subscript on K, I, will be explained in Chapter
2.)
If the material fails locally at some critical combination of stress and
strain, then fracture must occur at a critical stress intensity KIc.
Thus, KIc is an alternate measure of fracture toughness.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

40

 For the plate illustrated in Figure 1.8, the stress-intensity factor is

given by
(1.3)
Failure occurs when KI=KIc.
KI is the driving force for fracture and KIc is a measure of material
resistance.
Like Gc, KIc is assumed to be a size-independent material property.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

41

 Comparing Equation (1.1) and Equation (1.3) results in a

relationship between KI and G:
(1.4)

This same relationship holds for Gc and KIc.

Thus, the energy and stress-intensity approaches to fracture
mechanics are essentially equivalent for linear elastic materials.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

42

1.3.3 Time-Dependent Crack Growth and Damage

Tolerance
Fracture mechanics often plays a role in life prediction of
components that are subject to time-dependent crack growth
mechanisms such as fatigue or stress corrosion cracking.
The rate of cracking can be correlated with fracture mechanics
parameters such as the stress-intensity factor, and the critical
crack size for failure can be computed if the fracture toughness is
known.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

43

For example, the fatigue crack growth rate in metals can usually be
described by the following empirical relationship:
(1.5)
where da/dN is the crack growth per cycle, K is the stress-intensity
range, and C and m are material constants.
Damage tolerance, as its name suggests, entails allowing
subcritical flaws to remain in a structure. Repairing flawed material
or scrapping a flawed structure is expensive and if often
unnecessary. Fracture mechanics provides a rational basis for
establishing flaw tolerance limits.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

44

Consider a flaw (crack) in a

structure that grows with time
(Figure 1.10). The initial crack size
is inferred from nondestructive
examination (NDE), and the critical
crack size is computed from the
applied stress and fracture
toughness. An allowable flaw size
is defined by dividing the critical
size by a safety factor. The
Figure 1.10 The damage tolerance
predicted service life of the
approach to design.
structure can be calculated as the
time that is required for the flaw to
grow from its initial size to the
11/7/16
MAE 5460
45
maximum allowable size.

1.4 Effect of Material Properties on Fracture

Figure 1.11
Simplified
family tree for
the field of
fracture
mechanics.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

46

 Most of the early work was applicable only to linear elastic materials
under quasistatic conditions, while subsequent advances in fracture
research incorporated other types of material behavior.
Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics considers plastic deformation under
quasistatic conditions, while dynamic, viscoelastic, and viscoplastic
fracture mechanics include time as a variable.
A dashed line is drawn between linear elastic and dynamic fracture
mechanics because some early research considered dynamic linear
elastic behavior.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

47

 Elastic-plastic, viscoelastic, and viscoplastic fracture behavior are

sometimes included in the more general heading of nonlinear fracture
mechanics.
The branch of fracture mechanics that one should apply to a
particular problem obviously depends on material behavior.

For a cracked plate (Figure 1.8) that is loaded to failure, Figure 1.12
(next slide) is a schematic plot of failure stress vs. fracture toughness
KIc.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

48

 For low toughness materials,

brittle fracture is the governing
failure mechanism, and critical
stress varies linearly with KIc,
as predicted by Equation (1.3).
At very high toughness
values, linear elastic fracture
mechanics (LEFM) is no
longer valid, and failure is
governed by the flow
properties of the material.
Figure 1.12 Effect of fracture toughness on
the governing failure mechanism.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

49

 At intermediate toughness levels, there is a transition between

brittle fracture under linear elastic conditions and ductile overload.
Nonlinear fracture mechanics bridges the gap between LEFM and
collapse.

So: If toughness is low, LEFM is applicable to the problem, but if

toughness is sufficiently high, fracture mechanics ceases to be
relevant to the problem because failure stress is insensitive to
toughness; a simple limit load analysis is all that is required to
predict failure stress in a material with very high fracture toughness.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

50

Table 1.1 lists

various
materials,
together with
the typical
fracture regime
for each
material.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

51

1.5 A Brief Review of Dimensional Analysis

Dimensional analysis is an important tool for developing mathematical
models of physical phenomena, and it can help us understand existing
models.
Many difficult concepts in fracture mechanics become relatively
transparent when one considers the relevant dimensions of the problem.
For example, dimensional analysis gives us a clue as to when a particular
model, such as linear elastic fracture mechanics, is no longer valid.
Let us review the fundamental theorem of dimensional analysis and then
look at a few simple applications to fracture mechanics.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

52

1.5.1 The Buckingham -Theorem

The first step in building a mathematical model of a physical
phenomenon is to identify all of the parameters that may
influence the phenomenon.
Assume that a problem, or at least an idealized version of it, can
be described by the following set of scalar quantities: {u, W1, W2,...,
Wn}. The dimensions of all quantities in this set is denoted by {[u],
[W1], [W2],..., [Wn]}.
Now suppose that we wish to express the first variable u(1.6)
as a
function of the remaining parameters:
11/7/16

u = f(W1,W
MAE
5460
2,...,W
n)

53

 Thus, the process of modeling the problem is reduced to finding

a mathematical relationship that represents f as best as possible.
We might accomplish this by performing a set of experiments in
which we measure u while varying each Wi independently.
The number of experiments can be greatly reduced, and the
modeling processes simplified, through dimensional analysis.
The first step is to identify all of the fundamental dimensional units
(fdus) in the problem: {L1, L2,..., Lm}.
11/7/16

MAE 5460

54

For example, a typical mechanics problem may have {L1 = length, L2

= mass, L3 = time}. We can express the dimensions of each quantity
in our problem as the product of the powers of the fdus; i.e., for
any quantity X, we have
[X] = L1a1L2a2,...,Lmam

(1.7)

The quantity X is dimensionless if [X] = 1.

In the set of Ws, we can identify m primary quantities that contain all
of the fdus in the problem.The remaining variables are secondary
quantities, and their dimensions can be expressed in terms of the
primary quantities:
11/7/16

[Wm+j] = [W1]am+j(1),...,[Wm]am+j(m)

MAE 5460

(j = 1,2,...,n-m)

(1.8)
55

Thus, we can define a set of new quantities i that are

dimensionless:

(1.9)
Similarly, the dimensions of u can be expressed in terms of the
dimensions of the primary quantities:
(1.10)
and we can form the following dimensionless quantity:
11/7/16

(1.11)

MAE 5460

56

This new function F is independent of the system of

measurement units.
Note that the number of quantities in F has been reduced from
the old function by m, the number of fdus. Thus dimensional
analysis has reduced the degrees of freedom in our model, and
we need vary only n m quantities in our experiments or
computer simulations.
The Buckingham -theorem also gives guidance on how to
scale a problem to different sizes or to other systems of
measurement units. Each dimensionless group (i) must be
scaled
conditions at two different
11/7/16 in order to obtain equivalent
MAE 5460
57

1.5.2 Dimensional Analysis in Fracture Mechanics

Dimensional analysis proves to be a very useful tool in fracture
mechanics. Later chapters describe how dimensional arguments
play a key role in developing mathematical descriptions for
important phenomena. For now, let us explore a few simple
Figure
1.13
Edgeexamples.
cracked plates
subject to a
remote tensile
stress: (a) edge
crack in a wide
elastic plate, (b)
edge crack in a
finite width elastic
plate, and (c) 58edge
11/7/16
MAE 5460

 Consider a series of cracked plates under a remote tensile stress

, as illustrated in Figure 1.13. Assume that each is a twodimensional problem; that is, the thickness dimension does not
enter into the problem.
The first case, Figure 1.13(a), is an edge crack of length a in an
elastic, semi-infinite plate. In this case infinite means that the
plate width is much larger than the crack size.
Suppose that we wish to know how one of the stress components
ij varies with position. Adopt a polar coordinate system with the
origin at the crack tip, as illustrated in Figure 1.9. A generalized
functional relationship can be written as
(1.13)
11/7/16

MAE 5460

59

Eliminate kl and kl from f1 by noting that for a linear elastic

problem, strain is uniquely defined by stress through Hookes law
and the stress components at a point increase in proportion to
one another.
Let and a be the primary quantities. Invoking the Buckingham
-theorem gives

(1.14)
When the plate width is finite (Figure 1.13(b)), an additional
dimension is required to describe the problem:
11/7/16

MAE 5460

60

Thus, one might expect Equation (1.14) to give erroneous results

when the crack extends across a significant fraction of the plate
width.
Consider a large plate and a small plate made of the same
material (same E and ), with the same a/W ratio, loaded to the
same remote stress. The local stress at an angle from the crack
plane in each plate would depend only on the r/a ratio, as long as
both plates remained elastic.
When a plastic zone forms ahead of the crack tip (Figure 1.13(c)),
the problem is complicated further. If we assume that the material

the
yield strength is sufficient to define
does not strain
harden,
11/7/16 properties. The stress field
MAE 5460 is given by
61
the flow

The first two functions, F1 and F2, correspond to LEFM, and

F3 is an elastic-plastic relationship.
Thus, dimensional analysis tells us that LEFM is valid only
when ry << a and << YS. In Chapter 2, the same conclusion
is reached through a somewhat more complicated
argument.

11/7/16

MAE 5460

62